Crosses to bear?

This week the Supreme Court held that a Utah community had the freedom to decide which religious monuments could be permanently displayed in a public park. This decision, Pleasant Grove vs. Summun is troubling and leaves me admittedly conflicted.

The SCOTUS decided to look at the case on purely free speech grounds. But clearly, fundamental questions regarding religious freedom are "the elephant in the refrigerator" involving this case.

We must ask ourself if this ruling leads to a slippery slope where governments, both local and national, are put in the position to grant elevated status to one doctrine over another. Ten Commandments okay, but buddha's wheel, not so good

Are we picking and choosing or endorsing palatable religions with this decision? Is this another attempt by a conservative court to emphasize that America is or should be a "christian nation"?

Now as a practical matter, I can understand that a community would have a hard time servicing every Tom, Dick and Robert who wanted to start their own religion and erect public monuments to themselves. Things might get awfully crowded. But let's be realistic, this shows the folly of allowing creches, crosses, menorahs, the whole megillah in the first place.

I grew up in the land where Juan Cabrillo first set foot close to five hundred years ago, and used to live below the Mt. Helix cross in La Mesa, that is pictured above. I cherish the historical and aesthetic beauty of such monuments. I love the spanish heritage of the area, with it's religious imagery and all. I live near the most beautiful public park in the nation, Balboa replete with architecture from the Spanish conquest.

The idea that the majority could give a government stamped seal of approval to one religious group over another gives me a bit of a fright. The founding fathers were very careful not to endorse a religious viewpoint. I think we would be better served to not allow any new religious monuments in our public facilities.